badlatitude

This is An Example of Why We Don't Trust Gun Nutterz

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Must be a quiet Wednesday, only two dead.

BEAVER COUNTY (KDKA) – "At least two people have been killed after a shooting on the Penn State Beaver campus. 

"The possession, carrying, or use of any weapon, ammunition, or explosive by any person is prohibited on all University property except by authorized law enforcement officers and other persons specifically authorized by the University."   https://policy.psu.edu/policies/SY12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"The possession, carrying, or use of any weapon, ammunition, or explosive by any person is prohibited on all University property except by authorized law enforcement officers and other persons specifically authorized by the University."   https://policy.psu.edu/policies/SY12

It looks like a murder-suicide, so whoever went through with that killing, probably didn't care about that law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 3:36 PM, badlatitude said:
On 12/13/2017 at 3:23 PM, bpm57 said:

"The possession, carrying, or use of any weapon, ammunition, or explosive by any person is prohibited on all University property except by authorized law enforcement officers and other persons specifically authorized by the University."   https://policy.psu.edu/policies/SY12

It looks like a murder-suicide, so whoever went through with that killing, probably didn't care about that law.

Ya think?  

Now please tell that to Joke-al before he goes and proposes some new laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody else thought the Christmas songs were funny?

Buncha Scrooges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another senseless murder of a child due to ignorant parents.

"A Florida man is facing negligence charges after his 5-year-old son fatally shot himself in the head with a gun he found in the glove box of the man’s car. 

Jamal Daniel Todman was arrested Monday and charged with negligent storage of a firearm in connection with the Oct. 4 death of his son Judah. 

The accidental shooting happened outside an Orlando day care center, while Todman, 34, was inside picking up his 3-year-old son, according to the Orlando Sentinel. 

It’s unclear how long Judah was left in the car by himself. However, when his father and brother came back, the gun from the car’s glove box was on the floor, and Judah was slumped over with blood on his head, according to WESH. 

The boy was rushed to a hospital across the street, but died from self-inflicted shooting wounds. 

<snip> 

Gunshot wounds are now the third leading cause of childhood deaths in the U.S., according to a study published earlier this year in the journal Pediatrics."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jamal-todman-negligence-son-gun_us_5a3ac313e4b0b0e5a79f3cc4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the parents fault.

Likely gun nutter comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's the parents fault.

Likely gun nutter comment.

Hence the negligence charge.

"Let's ban ordinary .22's that are perfectly legal to own unregistered in Canada!"

Likely gun grabber reaction, unless you're talking about that particular grabber's own particular .22, which is very different from the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Just another senseless murder of a child due to ignorant parents.

"A Florida man is facing negligence charges after his 5-year-old son fatally shot himself in the head with a gun he found in the glove box of the man’s car. 

Jamal Daniel Todman was arrested Monday and charged with negligent storage of a firearm in connection with the Oct. 4 death of his son Judah. 

The accidental shooting happened outside an Orlando day care center, while Todman, 34, was inside picking up his 3-year-old son, according to the Orlando Sentinel. 

It’s unclear how long Judah was left in the car by himself. However, when his father and brother came back, the gun from the car’s glove box was on the floor, and Judah was slumped over with blood on his head, according to WESH. 

The boy was rushed to a hospital across the street, but died from self-inflicted shooting wounds. 

<snip> 

Gunshot wounds are now the third leading cause of childhood deaths in the U.S., according to a study published earlier this year in the journal Pediatrics."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jamal-todman-negligence-son-gun_us_5a3ac313e4b0b0e5a79f3cc4

Why does this incident make you not trust yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2017 at 5:51 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Ya think?  

Now please tell that to Joke-al before he goes and proposes some new laws.

Boogey man much? Whom are you referring to? I don't propose many laws, if I've proposed any, ever. I just debunk your gun violence platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 6:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here's a clue: violence is violence, even if it's committed by someone who works for a government.

Not really. The community, once formed, takes on an  overview of any violence within the community. Locke and Hobbes and Blackstone recognized that the state must handle a transparent monopoly on violence.

In Seattle, we had developed a problem of ethnically applied law and police violence. The feds faced off with the local police  by sending in a federal monitor. The monitor soon threatened the Sheriff, then the Police Union,  and thru them, the rank and file, with federal hijinks if they didn't meet specific benchmarks with in three years. After three years, the federal monitor declared the changes adequate. A female police chief from Boston, Katherine O'Toole, who had once cleaned up police forces in Ireland, was the hero of the chapter. 

That's how it works in civilization. Violence lays out differently than the law of the jungle. And interpersonal personal violence gets reviewed in court, subject to civil and other laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 11:31 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A large proportion of our mass shootings result in no deaths.

Hmmm. Let's see your figures.

No mass shooting is good, Tom Ray, even if the multiple victims survive.  They are horrific, of course. What were you thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 12/10/2017 at 2:31 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A large proportion of our mass shootings result in no deaths.

Hmmm. Let's see your figures.

OK.

On 12/7/2017 at 9:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 12/7/2017 at 7:55 AM, cmilliken said:

In case anyone is interested, here's the data on 'us mass shootings' including references to the news articles from which the data is derived.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

 

Take it for what it is.  On one hand, you have 565 people killed this year in mass shootings which is 565 more than you'd like to have.

On the other hand, given 325+ million people (and 300+ million guns), you have a 0.00017% chance of dying per year in a mass shooting.  Which, ironically, is about the same chance you have of drowning in boating-related incidents per year.

Looks like a large proportion of them involve zero fatalities.

Look at the list yourself. It's easy to scan for zero fatalities. Though I wouldn't say that site really represents "my figures."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 5:12 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Of course, Tom. You're right dear. I clearly didn't say what I said. You never misrepresent a person's posts or views to score points. You most certainly don't have a reputation for doing that. My apologies.

Tom can't repeat another's position honestly. Therefore the discussion with Tom never really begins. After tens of thousands of posts, Tom gained a rep for twisting the dialogue. Tom is very impressed with Tom, who can't get beyond his own twisted  POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK.

Look at the list yourself. It's easy to scan for zero fatalities. Though I wouldn't say that site really represents "my figures."

CATO Wheaties for breakfast? Present your figures yourself, if they are worthy. And lay our the benefit of a few non-fatal shootings in the USA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

Present your figures, if they are worthy. And lay our the benefit of ANY non-fatal shootings in the USA.

You have a clicky thingy, right? Use it.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

As for defensive shootings, we have a thread on those. Some don't result in fatalities. Pick one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You have a clicky thingy, right? Use it.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

As for defensive shootings, we have a thread on those. Some don't result in fatalities. Pick one.

 

Nice innuendo. Twice challenged, you have not made your point.

Is the cover page to the Miller decision what I get for opening another link from Tom Ray? Maybe a link to the Heller thread (whoops, now that Heller has become your nemesis)?

IMO your elk fared poorly on the SDU thread.

Quote

Road Rage Incidents (Source: the Gun Vioolnce Archives)

2014   247 incidents

2016   620 incidents Up 250% in three years

 

Quote

Florida was No. 1, with 147; followed by Texas, 126; California, 82; Tennessee, 68; and Pennsylvania, 62. Louisiana was No. 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoon feeding is required? OK.

mass-shootings.jpg

So it looks like 7 of the last 10 cited in milliken/Mitch's source did not involve fatalities.

That's a large proportion, as I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why does this incident make you not trust yourself?

Explain yourself, Tom, how would this have anything to do with trusting myself?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Explain yourself, Tom, how would this have anything to do with trusting myself?

You put it in this thread and gave the thread this title.

You're a self-confessed assault weapon owner, so a gun nutter.

So... I had to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You put it in this thread and gave the thread this title.

You're a self-confessed assault weapon owner, so a gun nutter.

So... I had to ask.

I'm a self-confessed assault weapon owner with a conscience. You're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm a self-confessed assault weapon owner with a conscience. You're not.

That's not true. Admittedly, I was unaware that my dad's old .22 was an assault weapon until FL grabberz informed me, but I'm clear on that point now. I know I'm an assault weapon owner. What makes you say I have no conscience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's not true. Admittedly, I was unaware that my dad's old .22 was an assault weapon until FL grabberz informed me, but I'm clear on that point now. I know I'm an assault weapon owner. What makes you say I have no conscience?

You've never agreed to a proposed gun law or ever proposed one of your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You've never agreed to a proposed gun law or ever proposed one of your own.

Those are the signs of a conscience? I didn't know.

Good to know I have one. You have to look in the thread about me for stuff like this about me.

On 9/1/2015 at 9:48 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have mentioned that depriving those under a domestic violence restraining order of guns is one of very few gun control measures that has been shown to do any good, so your characterization of my views is completely wrong on that point.

You've never said that a gun control policy or group goes too far. And won't. That darn taboo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 What makes you say I have no conscience?

You don't object to gun suicides, you object to how they are counted.

You don't object to four being shot in one mass shooting, you object to how the  incident is counted.

You will let TR falsehoods stand, without retraction, in a pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

(to badlat) You're a self-confessed assault weapon owner, so a gun nutter.

No. Such third grade simplicity is beneath you, Tom. You got the first part right, but...

  • 1.Badlat is reasonable, pragmatic, aware, informed, prepared, and prescient.
  • 2.He's not so nuts as to break a law over a fun toy.
  • 3.His self identity will not be shattered without an AW.
  • 4.Hear him spouting any SAF or CATO nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So it looks like 7 of the last 10 cited in milliken/Mitch's source did not involve fatalities.

That's a large proportion, as I said.

AFTER THE CATO WHEATIES: You marginalized a whole bunch of Americans (thirty five) who just got shot several at a time, in a land of too many shootings. You are altruistically searching for a kinder and gentler term for "mass shooting," for the CATO Institute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's not true. Admittedly, I was unaware that my dad's old .22 was an assault weapon until FL grabberz informed me, but I'm clear on that point now. I know I'm an assault weapon owner. What makes you say I have no conscience?

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

Assaut weapon, my ass. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. In this episode, inteligent anarchists become transfixed, brainwashed, as it were,  by repeated nonsense...

This whole uproar is a half-truth: .22 caliber tube feeders are specifically exempted within Tom's law. The word "rimfire" needs to be stricken elsewhere in the law...which is far more likely than the pathetic conspiracy theory about confiscation of any .22's in FL and WA at the present time. 

We have a private little group which believes, and discusses, such crap, in a twelve-month bubble. YCMTSU.

 

 

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

How was I supposed to know? People are always talking as if these "assault weapons" are guns you might find in the hands of a soldier.

The magazine article alerting me to the latest grabby proposal certainly gave that impression. But it also linked to the text of the law, so I decided to see what kinds of guns were covered.

I was pretty surprised that an old tube-fed .22 is considered a battlefield weapon. You were a soldier. Did you ever see one in a war? Do you find it surprising that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an assault weapon or did you already know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
21 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

How was I supposed to know? People are always talking as if these "assault weapons" are guns you might find in the hands of a soldier.

The magazine article alerting me to the latest grabby proposal certainly gave that impression. But it also linked to the text of the law, so I decided to see what kinds of guns were covered.

I was pretty surprised that an old tube-fed .22 is considered a battlefield weapon. You were a soldier. Did you ever see one in a war? Do you find it surprising that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an assault weapon or did you already know that?

 

The thing that surprises me is the English people aren't frightened of semi auto rimfire rifles they allow them even with their tough gun laws. They don't have magazine restrictions for semi auto rimfire rifles and no mass shootings done with these type of scary semi auto rifles.

 

Why are the gun grabberz shit scared of semi auto rimfire rifles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 11:29 AM, jocal505 said:

Assaut weapon, my ass. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. In this episode, inteligent anarchists become transfixed, brainwashed, as it were,  by repeated nonsense...

This whole uproar is a half-truth: .22 caliber tube feeders are specifically exempted within Tom's law. The word "rimfire" needs to be stricken elsewhere in the law...which is far more likely than the pathetic conspiracy theory about confiscation of any .22's in FL and WA at the present time.

This statement makes it obvious you never read the bill in question, Joe.

167 d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic,

168 centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the

169 capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/254/BillText/Filed/HTML

Seems pretty clear to me.

And just for you, Joe, the pistol I mentioned before is also banned in the FL bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 11:02 AM, badlatitude said:

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

It is hard to keep track of what controllers consider assault weapons this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 5:46 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Why are the gun grabberz shit scared of semi auto rimfire rifles?

They aren't - they just want to piss off you and Tommy Gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

This statement makes it obvious you never read the bill in question, Joe.

167 d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic,

168 centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the

169 capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/254/BillText/Filed/HTML

Seems pretty clear to me.

And just for you, Joe, the pistol I mentioned before is also banned in the FL bill.

Details...details...

 

but does not include any
  187  of the following:
  188         1.A feeding device that has been permanently altered so
  189  that it cannot accommodate more than 7 rounds;
  190         2.A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Details...details...

 


but does not include any
  187  of the following:
  188         1.A feeding device that has been permanently altered so
  189  that it cannot accommodate more than 7 rounds;
  190         2.A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

 

I'll help by quoting the whole section.

182 (d) “Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding

183 device with the capacity to accept more than 7 rounds, or any

184 conversion kit, part, or combination of parts from which such a

185 device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or

186 under the control of the same person, but does not include any

187 of the following:

188 1. A feeding device that has been permanently altered so

189 that it cannot accommodate more than 7 rounds;

190 2. A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

191 3. A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action

192 firearm.

Read that whole section, then read what I quoted before.

Note that what I quoted before does not mention "large capacity magazine". It says " capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition"

A lever gun can hold whatever amount. A tube mag semi .22 is not a "large capacity magazine" if it holds more then 7 - but if it holds over 10 it is illegal per 5:d

I won't assume that it was an oversight that it is worded that way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys making a distinction between rimfire and center-fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what they do.

Nothing about weapons minutiae is too arcane to be overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

It's what they do.

Nothing about weapons minutiae is too arcane to be overlooked.

Tell us again why you bother to post in gun threads, Jon? You can't even tell us what the gun laws are in Canada.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rim job, center job...... It's a homo thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MauiPunter said:

Why are you guys making a distinction between rimfire and center-fire?

Joe doesn't want to admit that he owns an assault weapon under some proposed legislation.

60.png

Doesn't really fit the whole "weapon of war" religion that he preaches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's what they do.

Nothing about weapons minutiae is too arcane to be overlooked.

It's so unfair.  They will grind away at every detail, forevermore. The weeeping and gnashing of teeth.

It's fun to watch Pooplius and Mo deteriorate so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joe doesn't want to admit that he owns an assault weapon under some proposed legislation.

60.png

Doesn't really fit the whole "weapon of war" religion that he preaches...

This gun is an AW in FL and WA (and in a bubbleon PA). In MD, the fourth circuit federal appeals court is a religion.

The natives are getting restless. Waaah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This gun is an AW in FL and WA (and in a bubbleon PA). In MD, the fourth circuit federal appeals court is a religion.

The natives are getting restless. Waaah!

"Is"? when did the FL law pass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"Is"? when did the FL law pass?

Effective Date: 10/1/2017 
Last Action: 5/5/2017 Senate - Died in Judiciary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Effective Date: 10/1/2017 
Last Action: 5/5/2017 Senate - Died in Judiciary

...

a...

that means it died in committee, Joe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

...

a...

that means it died in committee, Joe.

 

Nice. So why were your panties grabbing your privates after May 5? Be like Tom Ray much? 

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Nice. So why were your panties grabbing your privates after May 5? Be like Tom Ray much?

It has been reintroduced, and I know you are a cheerleader for laws like that.

I'm sure something like it will be passed in NJ in a month or 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

It has been reintroduced

Have a link?

Quote

I'm sure something like it will be passed in NJ in a month or 2

Ah, you are sure of this, like Jeff is sure of many things. Scalia, ditto. Welcome to Political Anarchy, where we call that "imagining." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 7:53 PM, SloopJonB said:

It's the parents fault.

Likely gun nutter comment.

Who's fault is it then?  The kid's???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 6:05 AM, jocal505 said:
On 12/10/2017 at 11:31 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A large proportion of our mass shootings result in no deaths.

Hmmm. Let's see your figures.

No mass shooting is good, Tom Ray, even if the multiple victims survive.  They are horrific, of course. What were you thinking?

I was part of a mass shooting just yesterday and no deaths were recorded.  And something like 800 rounds were fired.  The only thing that was harmed were the paper and steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I was part of a mass shooting just yesterday and no deaths were recorded.  And something like 800 rounds were fired.  The only thing that was harmed were the paper and steel.

Every sperm is sacred.  I’m sure plenty was spilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 11:33 PM, jocal505 said:

No. Such third grade simplicity is beneath you, Tom. You got the first part right, but...

  • 1.Badlat is reasonable, pragmatic, aware, informed, prepared, and prescient.
  • 2.He's not so nuts as to break a law over a fun toy.
  • 3.His self identity will not be shattered without an AW.
  • 4.Hear him spouting any SAF or CATO nonsense?

Joe, you have repeatedly said that assault rifles are weapons of war and only for use on the battlefield.  Badlat has one of those weapons of war.  Is his future house in OR an acceptable battlefield?  Why won't you admonish BL for keeping a battle rifle that you want to take from the rest of us??  It is this hypocrisy (along with several other things) that keeps you from ever having any credibility around here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, MauiPunter said:

Why are you guys making a distinction between rimfire and center-fire?

7 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joe doesn't want to admit that he owns an assault weapon under some proposed legislation.

60.png

Doesn't really fit the whole "weapon of war" religion that he preaches...

Doesn't really address the question.  Are you trying to say that rimfire is less deadly than center fire?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MauiPunter said:

Doesn't really address the question.  Are you trying to say that rimfire is less deadly than center fire?

The answer is in the thread about that proposed law.

One of the few things on which Joe and I agree is that the word "rimfire" could be stricken from the definition of assault weapon and then my dad's old .22 wouldn't be an assault weapon.

There are other ways to make the law more sensible, none of which seem to appeal to the grabberz who reintroduce it every legislative session.

That one came up because the law named both rimfire and centerfire in the definition. Since it was a proposal by elected legislators in my state to ban and confiscate a gun that I own, it was a political issue of interest to me and I started a thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, VhmSays said:
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

This statement makes it obvious you never read the bill in question, Joe.

167 d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic,

168 centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the

169 capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/254/BillText/Filed/HTML

Seems pretty clear to me.

And just for you, Joe, the pistol I mentioned before is also banned in the FL bill.

Details...details...

 


but does not include any
  187  of the following:
  188         1.A feeding device that has been permanently altered so
  189  that it cannot accommodate more than 7 rounds;
  190         2.A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

I commented on those details in the topic post of the thread about the FL proposal to ban and confiscate my gun.

Yes, the law specifically says that the magazine attached to my gun is not "large capacity" because it's exempt from that definition.

It also specifically says that my gun is an assault weapon and there is no exemption to that definition.

So my gun is NOT to be banned and confiscated because of the large magazine. It's to be banned and confiscated because it's an assault weapon.

Sorry, I don't like either reason and I think we should continue to be like Canada, where owning a gun like mine is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Rim job, center job...... It's a homo thing.

I was wondering if you would ever comment on the proposal to ban and confiscate our .22's.

Your considered opinion is to toss out a homophobic slur.

You are actually sort of correct. Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith is a gay man. Is there something wrong with that? Is that some kind of mental defect that makes him get aroused by banning .22's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MauiPunter said:

Why are you guys making a distinction between rimfire and center-fire?

 

The English have very tough gun laws yet they allow semi auto rimfire rifles with no magazine limits, if the English don't have any problems with semi auto rimfire rifles despite their gun laws why are hoplophobes afraid of semi auto rimfire rifles?

Some states in the USA have tougher gun laws with rimfire semi auto rilfes compared to the UK, do you think the US should have tougher gun laws compared to the UK?

Quote

Ruger cannot bill to or ship 15-round magazines to the following states and cities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Washington DC. ILLINOIS: Cook County, Buffalo Grove, Dolton, Hazel Crest, Highland Park, Homewood, Melrose Park, and Oak Park. DO NOT ORDER THIS PRODUCT if you live in these locations.

http://shopruger.com/BX-15-22-Caliber-15-Round-Magazine/productinfo/90463/

In the UK they don't allow centre fire semi auto rifles yet semi auto rimfires with no magazine limits are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Joe, you have repeatedly said that assault rifles are weapons of war and only for use on the battlefield.  Badlat has one of those weapons of war.  Is his future house in OR an acceptable battlefield?  Why won't you admonish BL for keeping a battle rifle that you want to take from the rest of us??  It is this hypocrisy (along with several other things) that keeps you from ever having any credibility around here.  

We are each compromised over guns. Every gunowner. I pointed that out to you in 2013. Badlat is included.

Our respective credibility. sir, is reflected in Pee Wee's bikini shot. Merry Christmas.

7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

the grabberz who reintroduce it every legislative session.

On Christmas day, we find un-cited hyperbole coming from the deep South ^^^, based on loud, unresigned, pernicious fear of gun  confiscation.. (Bpm57 will be along soon to scarf it up.) Tom is squirming about, over his moar gunz program. His FL bill, so very scary, went out like a lamb in May, but Tom plagued us with hundreds of posts (about .22's) after it was a non-issue. Tom is going to annoy us into submission to Libertarian views.

With the FL law off the table in May of 2017, Tom polluted our forums with childish content for seven more  months in 2017?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I commented on those details in the topic post of the thread about the FL proposal to ban and confiscate my gun.

Yes, the law specifically says that the magazine attached to my gun is not "large capacity" because it's exempt from that definition.

It also specifically says that my gun is an assault weapon and there is no exemption to that definition.

So my gun is NOT to be banned and confiscated because of the large magazine. It's to be banned and confiscated because it's an assault weapon.

Sorry, I don't like either reason and I think we should continue to be like Canada, where owning a gun like mine is OK.

O Canada again, ruh oh, from Pooplius. Run what you brung, baby.

So now you are now flying the Canadian flag (hint: still not the CATO flag)? The Canadians will  not have your elk, Tom. Neither will the ACLU, neither will  MLK. Are you suffering identity confusion? You are a devout peddler of individual freedom...so what's up with all the leverage for the consensus of others, using your nemeses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

With the FL law off the table in May of 2017, Tom polluted our forums with childish content for seven more  months in 2017?

Well, you have polluted the forums with plenty of messages about how there is no individual right to own, yet you own firearms yourself. When asked about this, your views were suddenly flexible - as if your opinion on ownership applied to everyone else, but not you. I'll just settle for calling you a hypocrite on the topic.

Although I realize that you already know that the FL bill was reintroduced, I'll help you anyway.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=59984

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=59796&

Note that the FL House version has "assault weapon" in the name, but the FL Senate version is just called "gun safety".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

Although I realize that you already know that the FL bill was reintroduced,

I doubt he has learned about the 2018 versions yet.

Doing so would have required reading the thread, following links, reading those. You know, stuff Joe doesn't do.

Two trick pony: copy and paste. Read and understand would be new tricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Joe, you have repeatedly said that assault rifles are weapons of war and only for use on the battlefield.  Badlat has one of those weapons of war.  Is his future house in OR an acceptable battlefield?  Why won't you admonish BL for keeping a battle rifle that you want to take from the rest of us??  It is this hypocrisy (along with several other things) that keeps you from ever having any credibility around here.  

We are each compromised over guns. Every gunowner. I pointed that out to you in 2013. Badlat is included.

WTF kind of mealy-mouthed tap dance is this shit???  Just please make sure to include bad latte in your diatribes when you rant about battlefield weapons of war and that they should be confined to only those battlefields.  Unless you consider Oregon a battlefield. 

BTW - how does it make you feel knowing that one more battlefield war gun is moving closer to you?  Do you feel nervous having this weapon of war right next to your peaceful douchetopia state of WA?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Joe, you have repeatedly said that assault rifles are weapons of war and only for use on the battlefield.  Badlat has one of those weapons of war.  Is his future house in OR an acceptable battlefield?  Why won't you admonish BL for keeping a battle rifle that you want to take from the rest of us??  It is this hypocrisy (along with several other things) that keeps you from ever having any credibility around here.  

We are each compromised over guns. Every gunowner. I pointed that out to you in 2013. Badlat is included.

Hey joe - I think this requires a bit more in-depth introspection on your hypocrisy, n'est ce pas?  Let's analyze this, shall we?

FACT 1:  Jocal has repeatedly said that assault weapons are battle guns and weapons of war and have ZERO place in citizen's possession and he wants them removed.

FACT 2:  Bad Latte owns a quintessential assault rifle.  In fact his SCAR-17 really is the first major upgrade over the AR-15 platform representing a pretty large leap in technical improvements from that Vietnam era weapon.  And on top of that, it is chambered for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge (.30 cal) - making it exceptionally MORE lethal than the dinky .223 found in AR-15s.  In fact the weapon is so good, the US Special Forces has embraced this exact rifle (well with the exception of the fun switch) and ditched their previous M-4s (the mil version of the AR-15).  So not only does BL own an "assault rifle", but he owns a particularly deadly and effective assault rifle well more lethal than the run of the mill AR-15 that joe hates so much.

FACT 3:  Joe has given BL a pass on owning this lethal and deadly battle rifle because presumably BL exhibits qualities of character and behavior that supposedly makes him less likely to commit heinous mass shootings with it.  He also presumably has given BL a pass because BL is Joe's "comrade in arms" (so to speak).  Joe thinks BL is "his nigger" in the fight against gun crime.  So joe doesn't want to lose a sycophant Kindred spirit by alienating him.  But I digress......  The good character and behavior is what I want to discuss.

FACT 4:  None of the rest of the PA Gun Club such as LenP, AGITC, Tom, myself, etc has shown any character or behavior traits that would make us less desirable to get joe's prized pass on assault weapon ownership.  

Discussion points:  

  • BL is no more or less likely to commit heinous mass murder crimes with his assault rifle than any of us here on this board.  Besides, presumably BL has come to the "assault weapon" ownership game pretty late in life making him FAR more likely to snap one day and shoot up an elementary school.  How do we know he didn't buy it and move it to OR just for that reason?  The reality is he is VERY unlikely to do so, given his tone here - therefore both I and don't consider BL a threat.  But the likelihood of that happening actually is statistically something >0%.  So I don't understand why joe is willing to take that risk on BL.  
  • What joe hates to admit is that he is actually JUST LIKE THE REST OF US when it comes to how to deal with violence and crime.  As AGITC and I have said numerous times here - it is the BEHAVIOR of the person that needs to be looked at as the root cause of these violence issues.  By giving BL a pass on his SCAR battle rifle - joe has done exactly that.  Yet he can't fathom that the other several million people who might not agree with his politics or proposed COAs also are not dangerous and have no propensity for gun mayhem.  But because we are on the "other side" - we are labeled as unstable and not worthy and must immediately turn in our gunz.  
  • Back to the battlefield weapon meme of Joe's for a moment.... joe by labeling these guns as only fit for battlefields - Joe, you actually make our point FOR us.  We have long maintained that one of the two core reasons for the 2A is to use them to fight on a battlefield by the militia using guns supplied by themselves and fit for the purpose.  So thank you, I will keep my AR-15s and my SCAR and my other toys and when/if the "battle" comes to my neighborhood - I will thank you for fighting for my right to protect my community, my state and my nation should the need arise to protect the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Joe, I'll betcha can't reply to this without one of your cunt-n-pastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey joe - I think this requires a bit more in-depth introspection on your hypocrisy, n'est ce pas?  Let's analyze this, shall we?

FACT 1:  Jocal has repeatedly said that assault weapons are battle guns and weapons of war and have ZERO place in citizen's possession and he wants them removed.

FACT 2:  Bad Latte owns a quintessential assault rifle.  In fact his SCAR-17 really is the first major upgrade over the AR-15 platform representing a pretty large leap in technical improvements from that Vietnam era weapon.  And on top of that, it is chambered for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge (.30 cal) - making it exceptionally MORE lethal than the dinky .223 found in AR-15s.  In fact the weapon is so good, the US Special Forces has embraced this exact rifle (well with the exception of the fun switch) and ditched their previous M-4s (the mil version of the AR-15).  So not only does BL own an "assault rifle", but he owns a particularly deadly and effective assault rifle well more lethal than the run of the mill AR-15 that joe hates so much.

FACT 3:  Joe has given BL a pass on owning this lethal and deadly battle rifle because presumably BL exhibits qualities of character and behavior that supposedly makes him less likely to commit heinous mass shootings with it.  He also presumably has given BL a pass because BL is Joe's "comrade in arms" (so to speak).  Joe thinks BL is "his nigger" in the fight against gun crime.  So joe doesn't want to lose a sycophant Kindred spirit by alienating him.  But I digress......  The good character and behavior is what I want to discuss.

FACT 4:  None of the rest of the PA Gun Club such as LenP, AGITC, Tom, myself, etc has shown any character or behavior traits that would make us less desirable to get joe's prized pass on assault weapon ownership.  

Discussion points:  

  • BL is no more or less likely to commit heinous mass murder crimes with his assault rifle than any of us here on this board.  Besides, presumably BL has come to the "assault weapon" ownership game pretty late in life making him FAR more likely to snap one day and shoot up an elementary school.  How do we know he didn't buy it and move it to OR just for that reason?  The reality is he is VERY unlikely to do so, given his tone here - therefore both I and don't consider BL a threat.  But the likelihood of that happening actually is statistically something >0%.  So I don't understand why joe is willing to take that risk on BL.  
  • What joe hates to admit is that he is actually JUST LIKE THE REST OF US when it comes to how to deal with violence and crime.  As AGITC and I have said numerous times here - it is the BEHAVIOR of the person that needs to be looked at as the root cause of these violence issues.  By giving BL a pass on his SCAR battle rifle - joe has done exactly that.  Yet he can't fathom that the other several million people who might not agree with his politics or proposed COAs also are not dangerous and have no propensity for gun mayhem.  But because we are on the "other side" - we are labeled as unstable and not worthy and must immediately turn in our gunz.  
  • Back to the battlefield weapon meme of Joe's for a moment.... joe by labeling these guns as only fit for battlefields - Joe, you actually make our point FOR us.  We have long maintained that one of the two core reasons for the 2A is to use them to fight on a battlefield by the militia using guns supplied by themselves and fit for the purpose.  So thank you, I will keep my AR-15s and my SCAR and my other toys and when/if the "battle" comes to my neighborhood - I will thank you for fighting for my right to protect my community, my state and my nation should the need arise to protect the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Joe, I'll betcha can't reply to this without one of your cunt-n-pastes.

You really are nutz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You really are nutz.

Kind of funny that a guy so crazy about gun$ chooses to live in a country where he's not allowed to have them.

Thinking_Face_Emoji.png?9898922749706957

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You really are nutz.

Why? What have I said that is “nuts”?  Or is this the coward and/or lazy man’s way of not being able to dispute the facts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why. What have I said is “nuts”?  Or is this the coward and/or lazy man’s way of not being able to disputes the facts?

 

I think most people who read your screed will come to the same conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Kind of funny that a guy so crazy about gun$ chooses to live in a country where he's not allowed to have them.

Thinking_Face_Emoji.png?9898922749706957

So I can make lots of money to buy moar gunz. Duh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I think most people who read your screed will come to the same conclusion.

I’m not asking most people. I’m asking you.  What is factually incorrect and/or nuts about what I wrote?  My impression of you is that you’re not stupid, so that can’t be the reason why you can’t or won’t answer. 

And by the way this is about jocals hypocrisy and inconsistency. It’s not always about you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I’m not asking most people. I’m asking you.  What is factually incorrect and/or nuts about what I wrote?  

Jeff, if you think I am going to get into a protracted gun debate on Christmas of all days, you really are nutz. Enjoy the holiday and pause to consider what it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

The English have very tough gun laws yet they allow semi auto rimfire rifles with no magazine limits, if the English don't have any problems with semi auto rimfire rifles despite their gun laws why are hoplophobes afraid of semi auto rimfire rifles?

Some states in the USA have tougher gun laws with rimfire semi auto rilfes compared to the UK, do you think the US should have tougher gun laws compared to the UK?

In the UK they don't allow centre fire semi auto rifles yet semi auto rimfires with no magazine limits are allowed.

No one seems to be able to explain why there is a differentiation being made between rimfire and centerfire.   Is the argument that rimfire is more lethal than centerfire?  Less lethal?  It's not making any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2017 at 8:46 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Who's fault is it then?  The kid's???

People like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MauiPunter said:

No one seems to be able to explain why there is a differentiation being made between rimfire and centerfire.   Is the argument that rimfire is more lethal than centerfire?  Less lethal?  It's not making any sense.

I believe it's because rimfire are small caliber hence less lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I believe it's because rimfire are small caliber hence less lethal.

That's generally true, though there are some big rimfire calibers. I have never seen one.

Mostly, banning rimfires means banning .22's, .17 HMR's, .22 Magnums.

5 hours ago, MauiPunter said:

No one seems to be able to explain why there is a differentiation being made between rimfire and centerfire.   Is the argument that rimfire is more lethal than centerfire?  Less lethal?  It's not making any sense.

The FL bill makes no differentiation. With the possible exception of the rare, large rimfire calibers that I only know about from reading, the answer to your question is yes, a .22 is generally less lethal than a gun like your AR. Next time you're buying ammo, ask the clerk to hand you a .22 long rifle round and compare it to the ones you are buying. Or just go look up ballisitics info on both kinds. Your gun will fling lead further and faster than mine. Meaning, it can do more damage from further away. The ability to do more damage from a greater distance is one measure of lethality. Is there another that makes more sense to you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Just please make sure to include bad latte in your diatribes when you rant about battlefield weapons of war and that they should be confined to only those battlefields. 

Why would you go there? Why would you choose to focus on the nuances among gunowners? By doing so, you display my objections to your elk.

We have three different guys here, Joe, Jeff, and BL. How do they rate?

My mind goes to attitudes towards interpersonal violence, and attitudes of sympatico (or lack of it).  I reflect a bit on the global understanding of each, and on any "tricky dick" factor of their posting, their honesty factor, in other words.

Some anarchists seem more trustworthy than others. Some spout more unfounded rhetoric than others. Some engage in SAF talking points, some don't. Some plan to follow gun laws as they evolve, some don't. Some know better than to shoot shirtless tirechuckers, even on their bad hair days. 

Guns as a political force? That's bullshit. Does Badlat do insurrection theory? 

Some individuals I trust with guns, more than others. Who is who, under our laws, will be more and more apparent as time passes, IMO.

Civilization and society could proceed, and could evolve constructively, under the badlat model, as he calls a spade a spade and enjoys some shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why? What have I said that is “nuts”?  Or is this the coward and/or lazy man’s way of not being able to dispute the facts?

 

The facts are that your "constitutional right," which you trumpet, gives you a gun indoors, per Heller. We haven't gone beyond that.

Secondly, defending the constitution with your gun is too nuts for today's world.

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

 

Thirdly, LIFETIME MEMBER MUCH? "The facts" and data about gun violence are being obstructed by the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, badlatitude said:

(a Jeffie snippet here:) What joe hates to admit is that he is actually JUST LIKE THE REST OF US when it comes to how to deal with violence and crime. 

Dude. What part of "spawned by Gandhi" do you not understand? My basic objection is to the chain of violence itself. Your means, meaning lethal weapons, is ultra-violent, as featured on the lower road, and as cheered by the cheapest seats. You are low hanging fruit on the steady march to equality and dispassionate justice. Thanks for playing, Simple Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2017 at 6:06 AM, bpm57 said:

Well, you have polluted the forums with plenty of messages about how there is no individual right to own, yet you own firearms yourself.

The "pollution" I have presented has footnotes accepted by 21 agreed scholars. The work was presented to the SC in MacDonald, and I can defend every line of it on SAILING ANARCHY. Not one opposing scholar has been presented, mates.

You are correct that after 1000 pages of reading from four authors,  I find no historical basis for individual gun rights, whatsoever. I see my gun possession as a privilege within society, subject to appropriate review.

Yes,  having studied the progression of militia acts from the British 1660's to the US Militia Act of 1792, I see massive restrictions on militia members' shooting, inside of muster and outside as well. It wasn't about personal guns (or where the guns and powder were kept) for them--it was about militia service. They were not ga ga about their weapons.

On neither continent was armed confrontation adopted or even discussed in Parliamentary or State discussion. The historical examples cited in Heller each have a context which lack a consistent platform with one another--they are simply random mentions of individual rights, and one was rejected at the State level.

Scalia thought Joyce Lee Malcolm was an Oxford scholar. His study habits were poor: she was a Texan teaching at George Mason U, which is effectively a Koch Bros. institution.

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2017 at 7:41 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Two trick pony: copy and paste. Read and understand would be new tricks.

Either the copy or the paste got a rise out of you, eh? Such fine scholarship. Mr. Charles is a tenacious, organized gift.

Quote

Doing so would have required reading the thread, following links, reading those. You know, stuff Joe doesn't do.

Your bad, mate. Too many of your links are worthless once opened. Too many of your posts are repeat nonsense. WTF?

You need to do something about that. I once respected your message. Now, yeah, I refuse to wallow in your silliness.

Fight OCD. Think 2018 Tom. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The "pollution" I have presented has footnotes accepted by 21 agreed scholars. The work was presented to the SC in MacDonald, and I can defend every line of it on SAILING ANARCHY. Not one opposing scholar has been presented, mates.

As is usual with you Joe, you miss the point.

You are a hypocrite. You claim to believe that a group of college professors are the be-all-end-all of firearm scholarship, yet you do not follow their conclusion.

If you actually did believe them, you would not own a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites